Thanks for enlightening me and not being an ass about it.

if my read my posts you might be somewhat more enlightened, but after years of reading your one sentence sniders and having contributed not one single salient point over your many, many tiresome posts, i am firmly aware of the fact that reading what others have to say is not something you actively engage in. 

 

over and out.

I assume we do have the option and the club is still on its tiresome crusade to put the players wishes first, so the story comes out he wants to stay in Germany because he feels he'll develop better there and the club might agree that the extended loan would do him good, especially in a new manager turmoil period. Now the papers I don't like because that's not a good enough reason for them and prefer the classic make chelsea look bad method of reporting.

 

Clubs going to tell us nothing though.

Why would there be quotes? Why any time when it's remotely negative is it automatically deemed sh*te? There are NO quotes regarding conte coming here yet everyone takes it as gospel that it's a done deal, yet a player who has quite possibly made comments to his agent with the intention of them reaching chelsea is considered garbage, because there's no quotes?

I know a number of people who work in the press and can tell you for an absolute FACT that they have their sources. "Sources close to the player" generally means agent, or mate. Rags like the mirror and the express will often pull rumours together from various outlets throughout Europe and draw their own conclusions, but any half reputable publication will have done their homework, and I'd class the guardian in there as a relatively reputable source

Suits too many on here to dismiss things like this just because it doesn't chime with their own pro chelsea agenda. Seen it time and time again on here. Mata leaving: NO CHANCE IT'S ALL sh*tE. Lukaku leaving: repeat. Mourinho being Sacked: groundhog day.

Instead of simply dismissing it as sh*te, it would be nice if you could actually contribute something to a forum which has deteriorated significantly in recent months.

For me, this deal is indicative of our car crash situation at present, allowing a prospect like christensen to go out on a two year loan with no break clause. Who is making these decisions? And can you blame him for wasting to stay and play regular first team bundesliga football instead of returning to chelsea to warm a bench and then be sold in January?

I can't.

But there's no quotes anyway, so let's file this one under nonsense because dkw says so.

Admin close the thread. Cheers

Stop putting words in my mouth you prick.

the trouble is that by all accounts we cannot bring him back at a time of our choosing as it is a two year deal. this is why im utterly flummoxed as to why people think that this is a non-story. i think that this just highlights our absolutely rudderless policy of farming prospects out without any long term strategy or plan. who the f**k loans out one of our supposedly brightest defensive prospects on a two year deal with no break clause? this isnt the first time the two year with no break has been highlighted, and indeed on another thread on here it was mentioned and universally agreed as fact. 

 

bizarre that ripmourinho is saying there is "no substance" to the article. the whole f**king substance is the fact that its a two year loan, then states that conte must be coming here because he's resigned as italy manager and has "mentioned the premier league".  

 

must be bullsh*t though. 

 

Right we were having a normal conversation about this and you're choosing to be a c*nt for some reason and trying to belittle everyone.

 

No one has said it is a made up story or that the Conte story is true, people are merely stating that you can't take anything for truth if it has no substance to back it. The article about Christensen is pretty much based on opinion for all we know. As could be the one about Conte. To be perfectly honest i want Christensen to stay on loan because i don't think he's ready for Chelsea yet. 

 

Maybe in future try and speak to people with a bit of respect instead of belittling. This forum is meant to be fun, not somewhere that someone can't converse like a normal person in society without taking every counter argument to heart.

Right we were having a normal conversation about this and you're choosing to be a c*nt for some reason and trying to belittle everyone.

No one has said it is a made up story or that the Conte story is true, people are merely stating that you can't take anything for truth if it has no substance to back it. The article about Christensen is pretty much based on opinion for all we know. As could be the one about Conte. To be perfectly honest i want Christensen to stay on loan because i don't think he's ready for Chelsea yet.

Maybe in future try and speak to people with a bit of respect instead of belittling. This forum is meant to be fun, not somewhere that someone can't converse like a normal person in society without taking every counter argument to heart.

What you on about didn't see him belittle or disrespect anyone. Maybe I missed something

Edited April 1, 201610 yr by bluegraham

Kicking off in here today eh!

What you on about didn't see him belittle or disrespect anyone. Maybe I missed something

 

More to do with his comment to Stim tbh slyly saying he always misses the point etc.. Also twisting every point made to fit his agenda

All I'm seeing here is an argument for maintaining the status quo, but you're right in that you identify the cause for this as being Roman. He is an owner who is so blinded by the short-term that he constantly papers over the cracks with short-term fixes which ruin any long-term planning.

Just curious. Why would Jose during his re-appointment say that the club was looking to the future by promoting within and building a squad that could last 10yrs like the previous, if the owner is myopic in his views?. Also I think you're 13 yrs too late to say Roman has the club in a worse state than he took over.

This club seriously cant do anything right according to some. How is loaning Christensen out for a couple of years to ensure hes part Gladbach of the long term plans at the Club and given a fair shake a stupid decision? Id say its one of the best decisions we have made so far. Same when we sent a young striker to a team with absolute crap competition in Bamford. Everyone loved the deal when it happened untill he couldnt get on the pitch, then it was a "baffling" move by the club and a horrible loan. Some of our players this year have had very successfull loans Ake, Solanke, Christensen to name a few and the club has done well to facilitate deals that gives them the oppurtunity for lots of playing time. I have no idea were all this complaining comes from

Kicking off in here today eh!

 

f**king international break

More to do with his comment to Stim tbh slyly saying he always misses the point etc.. Also twisting every point made to fit his agenda

OK must of missed it. Everyone calm down and remember this date 19-5-2012.

Just curious. Why would Jose during his re-appointment say that the club was looking to the future by promoting within and building a squad that could last 10yrs like the previous, if the owner is myopic in his views?. Also I think you're 13 yrs too late to say Roman has the club in a worse state than he took over.

 

Because he was lying? Actually that's unfair because we've all had new jobs where the idealism of 'what could be' is all we think about.

 

And then the boss starts giving you deadlines, making you work weekends (Roman's a bugger for that apparently) and it all becomes about meeting your monthly targets.

 

Also just to correct you, I didn't say we were in a worse state. I said we were in a worse position than when he bought us in a number of ways, not all ways. When he bought us we had debts, we had nowhere near the commercial impact and we had an emptier trophy cabinet. He's had positives and negatives but our current position is undeniably worse in a number of ways.

 

This club seriously cant do anything right according to some. How is loaning Christensen out for a couple of years to ensure hes part Gladbach of the long term plans at the Club and given a fair shake a stupid decision? Id say its one of the best decisions we have made so far. Same when we sent a young striker to a team with absolute crap competition in Bamford. Everyone loved the deal when it happened untill he couldnt get on the pitch, then it was a "baffling" move by the club and a horrible loan. Some of our players this year have had very successfull loans Ake, Solanke, Christensen to name a few and the club has done well to facilitate deals that gives them the oppurtunity for lots of playing time. I have no idea were all this complaining comes from

 

Because it limits our options. Hypothetically speaking, say we decide not to give an ageing defender a contract and our current defenders underperform, whilst the best defender we have suffers a serious injury that might keep him out after the season starts. Meanwhile you have a defender who is performing very well in a competitive league and if he were in the squad tomorrow would probably start (April fools, not under Hiddink he wouldn't). Also the coach you're chasing occasionally favours a system that relies on a ball-playing defender.

 

Wouldn't you want the option to recall him? 

 

Now I'll admit that's a little bit facetious and I apologise but it's also the reality of the situation. Here's the real hypothetical.

 

If you loan a player and he's suddenly imbued with the spirit of Franz Beckenbauer, wouldn't a break clause (even if it's accompanied with a penalty payment) be a good idea?

 

And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

 

 

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

 

Chelsea, 2016.

Edited April 1, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

Because he was lying? Actually that's unfair because we've all had new jobs where the idealism of 'what could be' is all we think about.

 

And then the boss starts giving you deadlines, making you work weekends (Roman's a bugger for that apparently) and it all becomes about meeting your monthly targets.

 

Also just to correct you, I didn't say we were in a worse state. I said we were in a worse position than when he bought us in a number of ways, not all ways. When he bought us we had debts, we had nowhere near the commercial impact and we had an emptier trophy cabinet. He's had positives and negatives but our current position is undeniably worse in a number of ways.

 

 

Because it limits our options. Hypothetically speaking, say we decide not to give an ageing defender a contract and our current defenders underperform, whilst the best defender we have suffers a serious injury that might keep him out after the season starts. Meanwhile you have a defender who is performing very well in a competitive league and if he were in the squad tomorrow would probably start (April fools, not under Hiddink he wouldn't). Also the coach you're chasing occasionally favours a system that relies on a ball-playing defender.

 

Wouldn't you want the option to recall him? 

 

Now I'll admit that's a little bit facetious and I apologise but it's also the reality of the situation. Here's the real hypothetical.

 

If you loan a player and he's suddenly imbued with the spirit of Franz Beckenbauer, wouldn't a break clause (even if it's accompanied with a penalty payment) be a good idea?

 

And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

 

 

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

 

Chelsea, 2016.

 

Classic Chelsea

 

And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

 

 

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

 

Chelsea, 2016.

That's a good clause though, its there because in the past we have sent players out on loan who haven't gotten game time, like Bamford, who we recalled and sent elsewhere.

 

Plus, if we didn't have that clause ad a player went out on loan and got no game time, we would be unable to recall them. Which would then be the clubs fault for not having that clause. Damned if you do.......

Edited April 1, 201610 yr by dkw

That's a good clause though, its there because in the past we have sent players out on loan who haven't gotten game time, like Bamford, who we recalled and sent elsewhere.

 

Absolutely agree but the point is that we plan for loans that fail, but don't put anything in place if they succeed in some cases. 

 

It's short-sighted but it's also very negative. Even if you say we have to pay £10 million to break the loan that's still more freedom than we apparently have at the moment.

 

So rather than being able to capitalise on a player over-performing and becoming a viable option this summer, you're left to either work with what you have (which isn't good enough by most people's estimations) or go into the market and probably spend more than that. 

 

Because it limits our options. Hypothetically speaking, say we decide not to give an ageing defender a contract and our current defenders underperform, whilst the best defender we have suffers a serious injury that might keep him out after the season starts. Meanwhile you have a defender who is performing very well in a competitive league and if he were in the squad tomorrow would probably start (April fools, not under Hiddink he wouldn't). Also the coach you're chasing occasionally favours a system that relies on a ball-playing defender.

 

Wouldn't you want the option to recall him? 

 

Now I'll admit that's a little bit facetious and I apologise but it's also the reality of the situation. Here's the real hypothetical.

 

If you loan a player and he's suddenly imbued with the spirit of Franz Beckenbauer, wouldn't a break clause (even if it's accompanied with a penalty payment) be a good idea?

 

And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

 

 

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

 

Chelsea, 2016.

 

 

It seems the one thinking short term here is you. Getting him back now because he might get minutes and might be a good option to have NEXT year is thinking short term. He will almost no matter what get more minutes in Germany and staying there for another year is going to be the best for his development. One of the reason Gladbach has shown a lot of faith in him is because they KNOW that he will be there for another season. Thats not preparing for a loan to fail its giving the player the greatest chance to be successfull. Getting back a Christensen after another season in Germany is a much better deal for Chelsea football Club then to have him as an option/back up NeXT year

It seems the one thinking short term here is you. Getting him back now because he might get minutes and might be a good option to have NEXT year is thinking short term. He will almost no matter what get more minutes in Germany and staying there for another year is going to be the best for his development. One of the reason Gladbach has shown a lot of faith in him is because they KNOW that he will be there for another season. Thats not preparing for a loan to fail its giving the player the greatest chance to be successfull. Getting back a Christensen after another season in Germany is a much better deal for Chelsea football Club then to have him as an option/back up NeXT year

 

I don't think you and I will agree on what short-term means (or the correct way to type it) which is fine.

 

I think we'll also disagree on how we view the future. For you it's a definite thing you can predict and for me it's something I can only speculate on, but ultimately I just don't know. 

 

You on the other hand know exactly how his loan will play out next year (please, spoiler that stuff) and you can also say what would happen in the alternate reality where he'd return here, which is some next level Shrodinger's Cat football analysis (on a tangent, whether he's in the box or not is Pato any good?).

 

See me I can't do that. I can say that we probably need a defender, that we probably won't have the buying power we might otherwise have, that Christensen probably fits the type of defender Conte would like to bring in and that Christensen is possibly our third best centreback come July.

 

Other than that it's all speculation and that's where you have me at a disadvantage. What I think we can all agree on is that when planning long-term, next to security the most valuable thing you could ask for is flexibility. The deal we mapped out last summer doesn't allow for that and you're fine with that. But I'm struggling to think of a single other business where that is acceptable.

 

 

But here's a thought. What if you're wrong? What if Conte sees something in him that he likes and shows faith in him, possibly like he did with a 19 year old Paul Pogba? This is a player who had 7 professional appearances before that yet Conte gave him 37 in his first season at Juventus. Isn't that a possibility?

LoL dont be a dick. Off course I can be wrong, this is just my opinion. But the chances that he gets more minutes in Germany then here are just so high that pretending he want is either extremely naive or just wishfull thinking. And right now at the age he is at, the best thing for him is to play. He is, barring major injury, guaranteed that at Gladbach. Here, not so much. Off course nobody knows what happens, but Ill choose to compliment the Club on a well crafted loan deal that has given a young player lots of much needed experience and playing time instead of complaining, because there might be a minute chance that he could be the defensive version of Pogba next season.

 

While were at it, my hopes for next season are that Solanke comes back to be the next Drogba, Ake takes major strides under the wings of Conte to become our new left back for the next ten years and that Katey Perry decides she wants me to be her chamber boy. I mean it all COULD happen right?

 

Its whatever mate, like you said we wont disagree on this, to me you just comes of a ssomeone looking to bash the Club for everything and everything

LoL dont be a dick. Off course I can be wrong, this is just my opinion. But the chances that he gets more minutes in Germany then here are just so high that pretending he want is either extremely naive or just wishfull thinking. And right now at the age he is at, the best thing for him is to play. He is, barring major injury, guaranteed that at Gladbach. Here, not so much. Off course nobody knows what happens, but Ill choose to compliment the Club on a well crafted loan deal that has given a young player lots of much needed experience and playing time instead of complaining, because there might be a minute chance that he could be the defensive version of Pogba next season.

 

 

How many more minutes? Is the quality of those minutes or the chance to play under Conte in the Premier League not a consideration? Yes the club should be complimented on the progress he's shown and I think we're all doing that, but some of us looking towards the future now. That includes his future and our future as a club.

 

 

While were at it, my hopes for next season are that Solanke comes back to be the next Drogba, Ake takes major strides under the wings of Conte to become our new left back for the next ten years and that Katey Perry decides she wants me to be her chamber boy. I mean it all COULD happen right?

 

Solanke not's really that type of striker. He's more comparable to a Costa, whereas someone like Abraham is much more.....wait a minute. I see what you're doing, it's fun isn't it?

 

My advice, start by spelling Katy's name right.

 

 

Its whatever mate, like you said we wont disagree on this, to me you just comes of a ssomeone looking to bash the Club for everything and everything

 

I bash them for a lot and there's a lot of evidence to suggest they need bashing. I think where we are at the moment is the result of years of short-term planning papered over by Roman's chequebook and that as the buying power of other clubs becomes greater, we stand a chance of falling behind.

 

We had a massive headstart on other teams because of Roman yet rather than using those resources to build for the future, we became engrossed with the 'NOW' and the result of that is where we are now.

 

If you want my brutally honest opinion, we've become the 'rich man's plaything' that other fans always taunted us for being because we're at the mercy of the whim of a billionaire who has never actually spoken to us. He's run us recklessly, he tried to engineer a CPO vote to get the Freehold rights of this club and I think rather than this being a blip, it has the danger of being the beginning of something much worse and it's exactly things like the Christensen deal that have seen us arrive here.

 

Granted that probably doesn't change your opinion of me and it's a little bit off-topic, but I've been supporting this club for decades and I'm very worried about what it's becoming. This story about Christensen isn't in isolation either because there's a lot of talk about Ola Aina seeing his future away from this club. We have to be careful we don't become a club that young players avoid because they have to be our future.

Edited April 1, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

I think it's better for there to be no break clause tbh. I think it gives the loaning club more incentive to play them, as 2 years is a long time to be paying someone's wages for, with no possible transfer money coming in at the end.

Unless he is going to be 1st choice, he would be best staying where he is in all honesty.

I hope he stays abroad. With another full season under his belt playing as a starting CB all season will do him wonders, and when he comes back at the end of next season he will slot straight into our first team hopefully, alongside Zouma.

Ugh .. why would anyone want Russell Brand's and Orlando Bloom's sloppy seconds LOL

 

You're a braver man than me xfactor !

 

 

 

The issue for me is the fact that Christensen is more likely to get playing time in Gemany than he is here. THAT is the problem for me ... why is it so hard for a young player to be given a chance at CFC ?

 

I don't buy the arguments about "not Chelsea quality yet"  ... Christensen is proven in the Champions League, and, as Tottenham have shown, young players are plenty good enough for the PL and to compete for the title ...

I'm all for Christensen staying in Germany for another season but it has made me question the club. We only give players an opportunity if we've paid quite a bit of money for them.

 

If Zouma had been at our academy since he was 8 do you think he would have been given a look in by now? The same with Miazga, if he was in our academy would he have warranted a place on our bench before now? We have Clarke-Salter who i believe is better than Miazga but won't be given a look in because the club hasn't paid 3.5mio for him.

 

We had Lewis Baker, we then went out and bought Van Ginkel who was such a similar player and just walked onto our bench before the injury. Did he deserve it more than Baker or did his price tag get him there?

 

I'm not saying he would have made it at Chelsea but i remember Kalas having a great game against Liverpool back in 2013/14? and then he's never been seen of since. 

 

We need to give these players a few chances in cup games before we ship them out to see if they can do a job for us before going and making headlines elsewhere. 

 

I think if a player as talented as Ola Aina leaves when we've had an abysmal Ivanovic at RB most season it really is troubling times for Chelsea. 

The issue for me is the fact that Christensen is more likely to get playing time in Gemany than he is here. THAT is the problem for me ... why is it so hard for a young player to be given a chance at CFC ?

 

Well we have been developing Zouma nicely, and there is no chance we play 2 youth together without an experienced head in there like JT (God I hope he gets a new contract)

 

If Zouma gets fit again quickly then it'll be better for him in Germany than stunting both him and zouma by having to rotate them. Then in a years time he and zouma could be experienced enough to partner each other.

Because he was lying? Actually that's unfair because we've all had new jobs where the idealism of 'what could be' is all we think about.

And then the boss starts giving you deadlines, making you work weekends (Roman's a bugger for that apparently) and it all becomes about meeting your monthly targets.

Also just to correct you, I didn't say we were in a worse state. I said we were in a worse position than when he bought us in a number of ways, not all ways. When he bought us we had debts, we had nowhere near the commercial impact and we had an emptier trophy cabinet. He's had positives and negatives but our current position is undeniably worse in a number of ways.

Am I to assume in context you meant Roman is a task master and he demanded the unrealistic or Jose lied?. Our current position is temporary shouldn't be a yardstick to judge Roman's efforts so far,no?